Can you put up the pictures of Care (I think) chopping Addison around the throat? Ref came back for the penalty but could well have been a yellow card as well.

While you are at it, you may care to look again at the incident that led to Walkers try with the Quins player clearly playing the ball on the ground.

Ultimately you win some, you lose some and the ref didn't decide the outcome today - both sides could point to contentious decisions.

It was a good game and well played Quins. Two evenly matched teams both prepared to play attacking rugby. After the first 10 minutes where it looked like we (Sale) were going to carry on where we left off against Bath and run riot, credit to your players for picking themselves up and deservedly getting back into the game. Marcus Smith is a real livewire and must be the next England FH. He is an awesome talent.

Marler is a complete idiot however. Arguably cost you the game and should be hauled over the coals by both Club and the disciplinary panel.

There's sour grapes, then there's this! It's a seatbelt tackle, possibly a penalty but nothing else. Ref missed a few this afternoon both ways. I'd put the video of Marler attacking TJ if you wish to look at what decision cost you victory today...

Oh dear! Someone took all this time to find ONE decision that did not go their way to justify the competence of the ref and the outcome of a teams season! I am not a ref basher as these guys and girls go out there and do it week in and week out, which already shows they have more stones than the large majority of us. Guess what, decisions are made for and against teams of fair or unfair nature every game every week, there is no need for this at all!

I think DOK you should reconsider this, as it is poor of thought, poor of dead, and smacks of witch hunting and that of a very sore loser!!!

Me too, there are always incidents both ways that pretty much even out over the course of a season if not a match.

Picking one incident is sour grapes IMHO. That last passage of play didn't cost us the game. The red card did. Let's get it into perspective, (and it gives me great sadness to say it) there is one person to blame and he wasn't wearing yellow.

wombles222Oh dear! Someone took all this time to find ONE decision that did not go their way to justify the competence of the ref and the outcome of a teams season! I am not a ref basher as these guys and girls go out there and do it week in and week out, which already shows they have more stones than the large majority of us. Guess what, decisions are made for and against teams of fair or unfair nature every game every week, there is no need for this at all!

I think DOK you should reconsider this, as it is poor of thought, poor of dead, and smacks of witch hunting and that of a very sore loser!!!

Poor of dead?

Not meant to be a witch hunt and I'm not, as far as I know, described by anyone as a sore loser. I thought it was a great game and either side could have won it right up to the end. It's only when games are as close as that that the decisions by the referee become that important, if Munster are playing Zebre it probably doesn't matter too much how competent the referee is.

(why is it the moment after you've posted the message you spot the spelling/grammatical mistake?)

Apologies for the spelling error, however my point still stands, why highlight one moment during an 80 minute game and use it to rationalise the result when there are literally hundreds of moments that can dictate it from the first to last second. Then to secondly attribute this ONE call to the eventual result of a 22 game, 9 month season is even more mind boggling!

Matey there are thousands upon thousands of decisions that equal the result of the season, those made by the ref, the players, the coaches, the weather, the time of day, heck even down to whether the player had a pasta or pizza the night before! We cannot or should not attribute the fate of a team down to someone who is brave enough to take up the refereeing mantle, and someone, who without, the game would not exist! It damages a key component of the game we love, and goes against the values of it!

As an indication of blatant inconsistency and lack of concern for player safety then the post holds good as evidence. The episode may or may not have caused a defeat but the very defensive remarks offered by oppo fans sugggest that it was a poor ref decision. suggesting there were other mistakes/ignorance of the ref is just deflecting mainly what DOK was pointing out!

Well, that last sentence, wombles222, is your opinion and I respectfully disagree. In an amateur game it's certainly the right approach, at the end of the day the result of the match has very little ongoing impact. In the professional game we can apparently criticise CEOs, DORs, Coaches, Players but not referees?

It's not as if I'm threatening the very fabric of rugby union in this country by pointing out that referees' decisions can have a huge effect on a club's season. Had we won that game, it could have been just the thing to give us the confidence to make a determined attempt at a top four place. We saw last week what a lack of confidence can do to a team that should be up there scrapping for a top four place.

And criticism of referees and their decisions is not something I'm starting today. Wayne Barnes said he knows he's having a good game at Gloucester when it's the second half before the Shed starts singing "you don't know what you're doing".

Then my other question would be why did you not take the time to dissect the Marler Red card that left your lads facing a one player advantage for the majority of the second forty and use that as a reason that will define your season?

It is not just down to one decision, one person, one moment, but a plethora of all of them, both good and bad! You are right, your post is correct that you are not starting the referee criticism, but it is one of many that is trying to erode the referees rightful place as the arbiter of law, and that IS damaging to one of core values of the game.

This is pathetic. A series of still images which always look worse than they are. Besides refs do make mistakes. They are allowed to. As discussed your second try should have been disallowed. Also you should have been down to 13 after killing the ball on our line. There are other examples of things that were missed or harsh against sale. Move on. You should be pleased with the performance. You would have won if it wasn't for a moment of idiocy.

Then my other question would be why did you not take the time to dissect the Marler Red card that left your lads facing a one player advantage for the majority of the second forty and use that as a reason that will define your season?

I'll take a wild stab in the dark - because the ref got it spot on and there's nothing to dissect?

I suggest the majority of the people in the shed havenít got a clue whatís going but it gives them something to get excited about by picking on the referee..... we shall see how Wayne does tomorrow at the Ricoh, I no doubt will disagree with some decisions but when reviewing later I will Be mostly proved wrong as usual. Good or bad decision will more than likely even themselves out over the season..... you have more to worry about than the odd bad refereeing decision.

Then my other question would be why did you not take the time to dissect the Marler Red card that left your lads facing a one player advantage for the majority of the second forty and use that as a reason that will define your season?

I'll take a wild stab in the dark - because the ref got it spot on and there's nothing to dissect?

The game beyond the red card and how it was affected by the red would be a good place to start. But my point was that it is not just the one moment, but a plethora of them that decides the outcome. To highlight one to justify the result of a game and season, and use it to place another drop of water in an attempt to develop a sea of mistrust to overcome the role of the referee is damaging.

Problem is that we seem to be on the wrong end of many of these descisions be it not going to the TMO or not being consistent with descisions during a game. This can be the difference between 9th or 4th. I suppose all teams supporters may feel this but if you win because of wrong calls you don't care.

Mayor WestProblem is that we seem to be on the wrong end of many of these descisions be it not going to the TMO or not being consistent with descisions during a game. This can be the difference between 9th or 4th. I suppose all teams supporters may feel this but if you win because of wrong calls you don't care.

Nobody won today because of 'wrong calls'. If anything the margin should have been greater as Walkers try should have been a Sale penalty.

If you think that looks like a penalty/ yellow suggest you check out the Care high tackle on Addison after marlers red. Carley gave advantage (which sale used) but didn't go back to check it with TMO re any further sanction. Probably should have been carded.

Re Charnleys tackle when watching it live it didn't even look like a seat belt tackle. There was one on half way more central just into sales half before that was probably/ possibly was a seat belt tackle and I expected carley to call.

All of the above could and possibly should have changed the result. These are game time decisions which can be called. Very different than the Marler incident which was blatant and stupid and did, ultimately, cost you the game.

Mayor WestProblem is that I think we seem to be on the wrong end of many of these descisions be it not going to the TMO or not being consistent with descisions during a game. This can be the difference between 9th or 4th. I suppose all teams supporters may feel this but if you win because of wrong calls you don't care.

It's my favourite time of year when Quins come to visit Sale- you very rarely beat us on our own turf and you bitter lemons produce some really entertaining reads around how it's you against the world

Referee decisions like marginal high tackles go either way all the time. Just because this one happened to be in the final phase of play doesn't mean he robbed you of your season by depriving you of a kick

Teddington, have you not seen the perfectly good tries we have scored but the ref has refused to go to the TMO and not given the try. Or the unclear tries against us where the try is given but when requested no TMO. There has been plenty of discussion on here at the times so it's not just me.

Iím no fan of Carley at all and inconsistency in the game is irritating but itís rare that decisions donít go badly either way in a game. We are frequently our own worst enemy with our own play let alone officials.

I was at the game yesterday and listened via RefLink to the refs communication with the players & what the players are saying to him.

I suggest that the difference between the teams is that Jono Ross has read How To Win Friends and Influence People & Quins haven't. Quins were at the ref from the KO @#$%& and moaning about stuff that he'd aready dealt with.

Yesterday was a good game, between 2 very evenly matched teams. If your penalty had been a couple of inches the other way (& Marler didn't have a meltdown), you'd have 5 points. But it was down to fine margins etc etc.

I hope that Marcus Smith recovers quickly from his head knock. Just before our prop/centre scored his 2nd try, Smith took a knock and was out on his feet, before your medicos examined him & found him to be OK (how, I haven't a clue as he could barely stand and wobbled around like Bambi on ice)

Mayor WestTeddington, have you not seen the perfectly good tries we have scored but the ref has refused to go to the TMO and not given the try. Or the unclear tries against us where the try is given but when requested no TMO. There has been plenty of discussion on here at the times so it's not just me.

Yes of course I have and the whole point of what I'm saying is that things go both ways. Decisions go for and against and concentrating on just one is missing the point (and in cases such as this are just dour grapes)

The ref makes a decision and as players and fans we should respect it whether we agree with it or not

Quote:

Dave LIím no fan of Carley at all and inconsistency in the game is irritating but itís rare that decisions donít go badly either way in a game. We are frequently our own worst enemy with our own play let alone officials.

This game was a very exciting advert for rugby with lots of incidents and attractive play by two well matched teams. Results in rugby like in many sports hangs on all sorts of what ifs. What if Visser had not fouled De Klerk when you were on the verge of scoring in the first half? What if Joe Marler had not lost his cool? What if Smithís kick at goal had been a tiny bit more accurate? Etc etc. There were other incidents that were not in Quins control and others that Sale could feel aggrieved with. Itís the same in every single match. Stand up and yell at the ref at the time-great we all do it. Moan in a public forum that Carley has ruined your season is ridiculous. Sale have had many much more convincing controversial decisions go against them this season and I guess Quins have too. I think overall he had a good game and the standard of refereeing in the Aviva is higher than in France or Pro14. Itís a thankless task and I have every admiration for them.
I donít believe that there is any significant home bias intentional or unintentional. Indeed if referees would instinctively be biased it might be against a team whose director of rugby has been banned on more than one occasion for having the same one eyed opinion on a refereeís performance. I suggest you like Steve Diamond should keep it to discussion over a pint in the pub after the match. The rugby ethos is shaking hands after the game which I hope Joe and TJ managed to do.

Davenport SharkyThis game was a very exciting advert for rugby with lots of incidents and attractive play by two well matched teams. Results in rugby like in many sports hangs on all sorts of what ifs. What if Visser had not fouled De Klerk when you were on the verge of scoring in the first half? What if Joe Marler had not lost his cool? What if Smithís kick at goal had been a tiny bit more accurate? Etc etc. There were other incidents that were not in Quins control and others that Sale could feel aggrieved with. Itís the same in every single match. Stand up and yell at the ref at the time-great we all do it. Moan in a public forum that Carley has ruined your season is ridiculous. Sale have had many much more convincing controversial decisions go against them this season and I guess Quins have too. I think overall he had a good game and the standard of refereeing in the Aviva is higher than in France or Pro14. Itís a thankless task and I have every admiration for them.
I donít believe that there is any significant home bias intentional or unintentional. Indeed if referees would instinctively be biased it might be against a team whose director of rugby has been banned on more than one occasion for having the same one eyed opinion on a refereeís performance. I suggest you like Steve Diamond should keep it to discussion over a pint in the pub after the match. The rugby ethos is shaking hands after the game which I hope Joe and TJ managed to do.

Good post apart from your last sentence. The rugby ethos does not extend to shaking hands an hour later with someone who has blatantly and deliberately set out to to commit an act of unprovoked thuggery.

Davenport SharkyThis game was a very exciting advert for rugby with lots of incidents and attractive play by two well matched teams. Results in rugby like in many sports hangs on all sorts of what ifs. What if Visser had not fouled De Klerk when you were on the verge of scoring in the first half? What if Joe Marler had not lost his cool? What if Smithís kick at goal had been a tiny bit more accurate? Etc etc. There were other incidents that were not in Quins control and others that Sale could feel aggrieved with. Itís the same in every single match. Stand up and yell at the ref at the time-great we all do it. Moan in a public forum that Carley has ruined your season is ridiculous. Sale have had many much more convincing controversial decisions go against them this season and I guess Quins have too. I think overall he had a good game and the standard of refereeing in the Aviva is higher than in France or Pro14. Itís a thankless task and I have every admiration for them.
I donít believe that there is any significant home bias intentional or unintentional. Indeed if referees would instinctively be biased it might be against a team whose director of rugby has been banned on more than one occasion for having the same one eyed opinion on a refereeís performance. I suggest you like Steve Diamond should keep it to discussion over a pint in the pub after the match. The rugby ethos is shaking hands after the game which I hope Joe and TJ managed to do.

Good post apart from your last sentence. The rugby ethos does not extend to shaking hands an hour later with someone who has blatantly and deliberately set out to to commit an act of unprovoked thuggery.

Sorry but your completely wrong ... thatís what rugby ethos is all about .. things happen in the ďheat of battleĒ but once the whistle blows for full time its over ... in the (distant) past Iíve had many a disagreement on the pitch but always and I mean always have been able to shake hands and have a pint with my opponent.. in fact itís generally the ones that you have the disagreement with that you seek out .... thatís rugby ethos !!!!

Morning All! Actually, I thought Carley had a good game. I admired the way he talked to the players, a few other refs could learn from him. I picked on the incident as a way of saying how, in a tight game, a single (possibly missed) decision can alter the outcome, and a valuable win/three points we weren't expecting could make all the difference to our confidence and hence season.

It's not an attack on the fabric of rugby union, it wasn't even supposed to be a whinge, being a sore loser or an attack on Mr Carley, though some chose to see it that way.

scubashark, apologies, was constructing my response when you posted. If it helps, I'm well over it. It's history and I'm not going to hold any sort of grudge against Carley for missing a single decision at the end of a rugby match! I agree entirely reffing is a pretty thankless job (I never thank them!)

I still dont think you can 100 % say Robshaw was in touch. There is a point on the video where he does go into touch but you cannot see where the ball is. Vissers foot looks like it keeps him in touch. Touch judge had a clear view of that and never raised his flag. So for me the officials are guessing he was out.

If the TMO thought "Nothing clear or obvious", when the ref disagreed why did he then say "I agree" He obviously did not so should he not stick to his guns and challenge the ref, if not what is the point of having a TMO???

Anyway, thats in the past. I thought both sides could have pointed to decisions that went against them, for us I thought their first try could easily have been a forward pass. Thats the way it goes though. The ref never cost us that game with the last call, Marler did.

Mmm. So all refs are homer refs apart from when they come to Quins. Just think about that one.
It's very tight but he's in touch. Plus you could argue that it's accidental offside as he collides with a player in front. Without that collision Robshaw would have been in touch. The error from the officials re the Walker try was more significant. You were getting well beaten at that point and that try swung the momentum of the whole match.
I have to say I thought we would win comfortably with 5 points. I thought Quins were very good so you should all be pleased with the performance.

The Visser incident may or may not have been a game changer. For me, the penalty for Visser pulling de Klerk out of a ruck was farcical. Sale fans also have gripes about decisions. Refs get it wrong, and in the main part it's normally forgiven and forgotten fairly quickly.

However, what DOK's post does highlight is the sheer inconsistency in refereeing. In many games that incident would have received a penalty, maybe even a yellow card. Either that type of offence is punishable, or it isn't.

My own astonishment is with refs who seem unwilling to refer vital decisions to TMOs, or who then overrule TMOs. Robshaw may have scored, but nothing was given - it seems as though the TMO suddenly became convinced to change his stance. And a few weeks ago we had what looked like a clear try for Elia which wasn't given, and the ref wouldn't even review it.

I don't know how many of these contentious incidents other teams have; I only know that we seem to have too many.

I've seen the "sudden TMO mind change" a number of times this season. I think they've been told to present the evidence, give their opinion, then, if the referee disagrees with that opinion, to follow the referee's lead. Clearly, an argument breaking out would not look good.

At the end of the day it has to be the referee's call. That is what he is there to do. He gets to see the same pictures on the replay as the TMO and has to make a judgement. The TMO is not the referee any more than the linesmen are. Really, the only thing the TMO provides (apart from the replays) is a sounding board for the referee

Although, as has been pointed out, the ref will be looking at grainy images on a big screen far away, with home fans attempting to sway him. The TMO can look more closely, control the image speed frame by frame, and compare several angles at once.

Since the TMO is also a ref, it seems odd the the TMO should be overruled.

If the citing commissioner managed to cite Ioane for the strike in the 53rd minute on Marler (I assume this is the one that left his ear bleeding) then obviously there was video evidence available to the referee concerning that incident. I think Joe was feeling aggrieved his issue had been so casually dismissed that led to his strike on Ioane.

Personally i thought it was a dirty game. You can go back to the try from the Ward trurn over. The ball is passed by Danny Care to Ward, Danny is taken late with a shoulder charge no hands at all.

You could argue that the try from the turnover should not count as it should have been taken back to a penalty for foul play at least. I think you can look the game over and see a lot of off the ball stuff.

If it had been at the stoop I think we would have won and got more of the decisions, when away from home you often don't get the 50-50 calls

D-QuinsPersonally i thought it was a dirty game. You can go back to the try from the Ward trurn over. The ball is passed by Danny Care to Ward, Danny is taken late with a shoulder charge no hands at all.

If my memory is working right, over RefLink the ref said something to Faf along the lines of "you and Danny both need to keep an eye on your timing, as you've both now done the same thing"

& no, it wasn't a dirty game. There were plenty of big hits going in, but not a lot on the dirt side !

clutchMmm. So all refs are homer refs apart from when they come to Quins. Just think about that one.
It's very tight but he's in touch. Plus you could argue that it's accidental offside as he collides with a player in front. Without that collision Robshaw would have been in touch. The error from the officials re the Walker try was more significant. You were getting well beaten at that point and that try swung the momentum of the whole match.
I have to say I thought we would win comfortably with 5 points. I thought Quins were very good so you should all be pleased with the performance.

Very good point about the accidental offside. I think that should have been the call.

And, yes, Roberts clearly ripped the ball out on the deck, but that merely righted the wrong of their first try where the penultimate pass was made just before the 22 and caught at least a yard inside the 22.

Quinky KinAlthough, as has been pointed out, the ref will be looking at grainy images on a big screen far away, with home fans attempting to sway him. The TMO can look more closely, control the image speed frame by frame, and compare several angles at once.
Since the TMO is also a ref, it seems odd the the TMO should be overruled.

Yes, but the referee on the pitch is the ultimate arbiter.

A previous point was made that it would not be good for the ref and the TMO to be seen/heard debating too vociferously. When the question is try 'Yes or No?' then the TMO generally seems to give his opinion first and the ref will go with it. However, when the request is to look for other infringements, I get the impression that the ref generally makes his mind up from the replays and gives his interpretation based on what he 'thinks' he has seen, TMO will agree and then they confirm the action/sanction.

At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and I guess the ref has to take the ultimate responsibility

Quinky KinAlthough, as has been pointed out, the ref will be looking at grainy images on a big screen far away, with home fans attempting to sway him. The TMO can look more closely, control the image speed frame by frame, and compare several angles at once.
Since the TMO is also a ref, it seems odd the the TMO should be overruled.

Yes, but the referee on the pitch is the ultimate arbiter.

A previous point was made that it would not be good for the ref and the TMO to be seen/heard debating too vociferously. When the question is try 'Yes or No?' then the TMO generally seems to give his opinion first and the ref will go with it. However, when the request is to look for other infringements, I get the impression that the ref generally makes his mind up from the replays and gives his interpretation based on what he 'thinks' he has seen, TMO will agree and then they confirm the action/sanction.

At the end of the day, someone has to make a decision and I guess the ref has to take the ultimate responsibility

Absolutely, the ref has the final say. But it would make sense if he took into account the opinion of a fellow ref with a much better view IMO.

Agreed QK, but we'd done our Lazurus impression, come back from the dead, we got something like 20 points on the bounce to their 3, it was all heading in the right direction. I was quietly confident at that point. Convinced we'd thrown it away when Joe let the red mist come down. Amazed the end of the game came down to a video call, but actually that's the one call I'm happy with. To me it was terribly inconclusive, but if the referee is prepared to make a decision on it then fine - that's what he's there for.

Not clear though. It's more difficult to decuce that from a one handed pass as well. The hands backwards is just an interpretation and way of checking if it goes forward because it is impossible to deduce from the flight of the ball. I'll be honest I was worried live and was relieved when it wasn't checked. However looking at the reply it wouldn't have been overturned as it wasn't clear and obvious.
As a Sale fan we deserved a bit of the rub of the green. We've had some pretty harsh calls go against us this season. It all evens itself out over the season. I hope Quins use this performance as a positive to start believing they can win away from home. When that happens, similarly to Sale, they look a top 6 team.

clutchNot clear though. It's more difficult to decuce that from a one handed pass as well. The hands backwards is just an interpretation and way of checking if it goes forward because it is impossible to deduce from the flight of the ball. I'll be honest I was worried live and was relieved when it wasn't checked. However looking at the reply it wouldn't have been overturned as it wasn't clear and obvious.
As a Sale fan we deserved a bit of the rub of the green. We've had some pretty harsh calls go against us this season. It all evens itself out over the season. I hope Quins use this performance as a positive to start believing they can win away from home. When that happens, similarly to Sale, they look a top 6 team.

I'd disagree with the assertion a replay would have proved it went back. Quite the opposite. I also thought Addison's pass for the first try was a forward 'shovel' pass, but it was less obvious.

And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you've got us beaten for bad luck. We're swimming in it down here!

clutchNot clear though. It's more difficult to decuce that from a one handed pass as well. The hands backwards is just an interpretation and way of checking if it goes forward because it is impossible to deduce from the flight of the ball. I'll be honest I was worried live and was relieved when it wasn't checked. However looking at the reply it wouldn't have been overturned as it wasn't clear and obvious.
As a Sale fan we deserved a bit of the rub of the green. We've had some pretty harsh calls go against us this season. It all evens itself out over the season. I hope Quins use this performance as a positive to start believing they can win away from home. When that happens, similarly to Sale, they look a top 6 team.

I'd disagree with the assertion a replay would have proved it went back. Quite the opposite. I also thought Addison's pass for the first try was a forward 'shovel' pass, but it was less obvious.

And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you've got us beaten for bad luck. We're swimming in it down here!

You should look at Tigers board. Every referee has it in for them and doesnt understand the laws only apply to the opposition. There are a couple of posters in particular who are so hilariously predictable every week.

clutchNot clear though. It's more difficult to decuce that from a one handed pass as well. The hands backwards is just an interpretation and way of checking if it goes forward because it is impossible to deduce from the flight of the ball. I'll be honest I was worried live and was relieved when it wasn't checked. However looking at the reply it wouldn't have been overturned as it wasn't clear and obvious.
As a Sale fan we deserved a bit of the rub of the green. We've had some pretty harsh calls go against us this season. It all evens itself out over the season. I hope Quins use this performance as a positive to start believing they can win away from home. When that happens, similarly to Sale, they look a top 6 team.

I'd disagree with the assertion a replay would have proved it went back. Quite the opposite. I also thought Addison's pass for the first try was a forward 'shovel' pass, but it was less obvious.

And you're barking up the wrong tree if you think you've got us beaten for bad luck. We're swimming in it down here!

You should look at Tigers board. Every referee has it in for them and doesnt understand the laws only apply to the opposition. There are a couple of posters in particular who are so hilariously predictable every week.

We've got enough to worry about with our own team without adding the woes of others!

Cookie I apologies I thought you were referring to the Addison shovel. Which pass are we talking about. Luck evens itself out I'm sure over the course of a season. Like I said the biggest error was allowing the Walker try. I don't see you getting back into the game without it. All ifs and buts but it's easy to focus on the unlucky elements and convenient forget the stuff that goes your way. Without that huge momentum turning error I think we may have battered you.

Can't say I agree with the sentiment luck evens out over the season. Perhaps it does in terms of total numbers, yellow card tackles missed even out over 22 games. But if team A's unlucky penalty would have won them the game against team B. but the lucky penalty against team C came when team A were already 30 points down (or up), then just counting the event means nothing.

clutchCookie I apologies I thought you were referring to the Addison shovel. Which pass are we talking about. Luck evens itself out I'm sure over the course of a season. Like I said the biggest error was allowing the Walker try. I don't see you getting back into the game without it. All ifs and buts but it's easy to focus on the unlucky elements and convenient forget the stuff that goes your way. Without that huge momentum turning error I think we may have battered you.

Second try. Penultimate pass on the 22 is very obviously forward.

Agree Walker's should have been disallowed, but first two tries gave you the momentum we overturned and either (or both) could easily have been disallowed.

It's getting to be a case of crying wolf here. You are complaining that you have had no luck this year, but I'm somewhat doubting that when you are pointing out passes that aren't forward. The hands don't go forwards, there is no clear evidence to overturn, and Addison is at full pelt so there is quite a lot of forwards momentum, which is why Curry catches in front. The most forward pass looking is the pass to Chisholm. I think it was probably ok, and again no evidence to overturn. Inside passes often look suspect when they are not.

Besides, the refs have completely changed tune this season and seem to have given up with forward pass referrals. I'm sure you have had a few this year! The pass to Sinoti, if you have seen it, looked suspiciously forward.

Chin up fellas, your luck will turn around soon. At least the majority of the international period is during Europe and LV, where you won't miss the class of Care as much. Gloucester and Newcastle can be caught, and based on what I have seen you are a better side (we lost to Newcastle at home, but we were dreadful)

We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment.
We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals.
We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards.
If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing
abuse@sportnetwork.net